The Farmer, the Courtier and the Apes

Heron, who usually lives in silence, started to speak, once more, "They that love flattery—as it is to be feared, too many do—are in a fair way to repent of their foible at the long run. And yet, how few are there—among the whole race of mankind—who may be said to be full proof against its attacks?

What is flattery? Unlike servility, which is a general psychological disposition, flattery consists of an overt communicative act which is essentially ‘propositional.’ An act of flattery, typically makes use of excessive commendatory language in describing the qualities or record of another person for the purpose of creating a favorable attitude in that person towards the flatterer.

In one sense, an act of flattery, is very similar to bribery, using words rather than money or goods, and appealing to the addressee’s vanity, rather than to his material self-interest. Do you remember the story of the he Farmer, the Courtier and the Apes, told by your grandfather?

There were two men, travelling together, one was a Courtier, the flatterer, and an unadorned Farmer, always told the truth. Their journey led them to the land of the Apes. There was a whole crowd of Apes, and one of them, a bigger one, noticed the two men. The big ape, who was seemed to be their leader, summoned that these two men, be detained. Since he wanted to know, what these two men, thought about him, he commanded all his member, to stand before him, in a long-line to his right, and to his left, while a seat was prepared for him to sit on—this one big fella, had once seen an Emperor, so he was ordering to all his apes, to line up for him in the same way.

The two men, were then told to come forward, into the midst of the apes. So, the big ape inquired, 'Who am I?' The Courtier said, 'O sire, thou art the Emperor!' Then the ape asked, 'And those whom you see standing before me: who are they?' The man answered, 'Thy noble companions, thy chancellors, thy officials and the commanders of thy armies!' Because these lies flattered the ape and his fellows, he send out the man be showered with presents. All the apes were fooled by his flattery. Meanwhile, the farmer, who always told the truth, thought to himself, 'If that scoundrel liar received such rewards for telling lies, then surely, I will get even greater reward for telling the truth.' The big ape, interrogated the farmer, 'Now, you tell me who I am, and who are those whom you see standing before me?' And the man, who always loved the truth and had never lied, replied, 'You are simply a monkey, and all of these similar simians, are monkeys as well!' The big ape got irate, immediately summoned the apes to attack the farmer with their teeth and claws, for he had spoken the truth. Indeed, the truth, often hurts.

Suddenly, there was a gunshots, the apes ran helter-skelter. A hunter, approached, and freed them. After seeing the farmer's injury, he said, "Both of you, wait here, I will seek help." Then, he left.

Apparently, the drama wasn't over, yet. A panther, which had been lurking all along, jumped right in front of them, who were standing stiff, helpless. The Panther asked the Farmer, "What's the matter with you?" The farmer, recounted what had happened, truthfully. So, he was released.

The Panther looked at the courtier and snarl, "All human beings, are prone to suppress information that would undermine the sincerity of their admirers’ motives. People of status and power, are natural objects of flattery. From experience, they are often aware of this susceptibility and become suspicious of expressions of praise. Sometimes, the suspicion becomes tragically sweeping, that is to say, such people cannot accept any compliment on face value and completely disregard positive judgments about themselves. But most people still believe that they can make the distinction between, flattering words and real praise. This is why flattery always has some chance of success, even with people who seem to be completely immune to it. But apparently, that doesn't apply to me!"  

The courtier begged for mercy, "Please, end up my misery by setting me free!"

For a wicked man, who loved to tell lies and to make trouble, attacking honesty and truth, the end of his life, was not as pleasant as living in the palace.

There are, however, two related differences between bribery and flattery. First, bribery is typically a ‘deal’ between the two parties, the conditions of which are laid on—or under—the table. Second, the currency used in bribery is ‘real’—its value is undiminished by its use. The first difference, then, is that flattery is a surreptitious form of deception, and its success as a manipulative act is conditioned by the partial lack of awareness on the part of the addressee about its nature. Flattery succeeds only if the flatteree believes the flatterer has made an honest compliment. Since it is the perception in the eyes of the flatteree that matters, flattery may consist of a statement known to its utterer to be completely untrue, or at least, over-inflated in its positive evaluation of the addressee.

The second difference, concerns the speech act of flattery. The flatterer uses a compliment, in order to endear oneself to the flatteree, who is unaware of its phony nature. If A bribes B with 100 genuine gold coins, the value of these coins remains the same. Not so in the case of flattery. Flattery, accordingly, is to compliments, as lying is to assertions.

A similar argument can be applied to compliments, which are very similar to, if not a type of, assertions. Like complimenting, flattery makes positive assertions about another person. However, unlike someone who pays an honest compliment, the flatterer’s aim is to win the flatteree’s favor. Consequently, even if one flatters by uttering a compliment she knows to be true, the assertion does not transmit knowledge. This is so even if the flatterer uses a true compliment on purpose, is a reliable judge of the matter at hand, and has a reputation for being reliable. The reason is, that the flatterer is unreliable in another sense: he would not have made the compliment unless he wanted to gain something from the flatteree and might just as well have made a false compliment if such a compliment were useful and available. Therefore, the fact that one is flattering, nullifies the value of the compliment as a compliment. Unlike the currency used in bribery, that used by the flatterer is, by definition, counterfeit. An act of flattery, then, is an act of deception designed to win over the flatteree. In this respect, it seems morally indistinguishable from any other act of deception.

Like adulation, flattery is made from a position of inferiority or need—material or psychological. But unlike compliment, flattery is necessarily disingenuous. And, as is not the case with servility, the flatterer wishes to break to some extent the hierarchical relationship rather than acknowledge it. Aristotle, somewhat artificially—as he himself admits—tries to apply his model of virtue to flattery, suggesting that, it belongs to the sphere of social intercourse, in general, and to the agreeable in the business of life. Aristotle’s general formula, and the distinctions between flattery and complimenting, and between flattery and servility, lead to a general mapping of the two ideal types of flattery, or rather the two extreme poles on a continuous spectrum. The first may be called ‘the manipulative;’ the second, ‘the obsequious.’ The first corresponds to Aristotle’s description of excessive friendliness, aiming at one’s own advantage; the second, to the person who suffers from the same excessive need but has ‘no end in view.’ In zoological metaphor, the two forms of flattery are captured by ‘snake’ and ‘dog,’ respectively. Shakespeare uses ‘dog’ in this context.

The flatterer of the first type acts with cool design, aiming at achieving a particular favor or personal benefit, as a consequence of the favorable attitude the flatteree would presumably develop towards her. A clear illustration would be flattery in politics. Manipulative flattery is the mirror image of tact. Tact is the art of leaving certain things unsaid with the aim of sparing the addressee embarrassment. Flattery is saying things which should better have not been said. Both are ways of smoothing social relations, but tact is a virtue of introverted restraint which takes as its goal respect for the other, while flattery is a vice of extroverted deception. Both the tactful person and the flatterer are sensitive to the addressee’s self-image and honor, but the one respects it while the other manipulates it. In contrast to mere politeness, which is conventional and hence not considered subject to the norm of truth, both tact and flattery can operate only on the basis of the other party’s unawareness of the deviation from it. The vice of the flatterer relies on, or turns to, the susceptibility of the flatteree. Like tact, successful flattery requires a particular knowledge—knowledge of the flatteree, his vanity and ambition, as well as the ability to make the compliment sound real, convincing, honest and well-founded. But unlike tact, this knowledge is used to further the flatterer’s own aims, not to spare the addressee embarrassment.

This first type, could be described as cynical, the obsequious as pathetic. It is usually indignation, since it involves deception and consists of an immoral attempt to achieve something the flatterer does not deserve. If successful, the flatterer might attain something which is unjust—like a higher grade in school, a promotion in the office—in a way which is unfair, even harmful, to third parties. Typically, indignation is absent when we consider the initial inequality to be unjust and the benefits sought by the flatterer deserved, or when we find the flatterer amiable and the flatteree repugnant or ridiculous. Flattery can even serve as a means of exposing illegitimate hierarchy. Such cases are the stuff of comedy rather than of tragedy.

Flattery of the second type is psychologically more complex. It is an attempt to create some personal relationship in order to partly overcome a hierarchical gap. Unlike the manipulative kind, it is partially sincere and does not seek ‘material’ benefit, but only personal attention and reciprocal appreciation.

This second form of flattery, is aversion, and perhaps even pity, since although we do not stand to lose anything from the act, we judge its agent seriously defective in character. The two forms of flattery, address the inequality of power and status between the two parties in different ways. The manipulator tries to circumvent its implications by achieving his goals indirectly. The groveling flatterer does not accept the gap, but rather tries to transform the impersonal hierarchical relation into a personal, more egalitarian one. Unlike the manipulator, he seeks personal attention and friendship. Typically, even if we pity this type of flatterer, condemn the circumstances that lead him to flattery, and recognize the validity of his need, it is difficult to ‘side’ with such a character, who demonstrates his weakness and lack of selfrespect.

Aristotle views both types of flattery as manifestations of excessive friendship. This characterization is not very informative, and at first glance seems simply false, in particular as far as the cynical flatterer is concerned. Let us consider the manipulative type of flatterer and his effect on the flatteree. From the point of view of his metaphysically-based morality, Plato despises flattery for its being fake, that is, parasitical on truth. It has the appearance of reality but is illusory. It is based on the power of pleasure bestowed on the addressee, rather than on her good.

Wiliam Shakespeare, highlighted the ‘flattery’ phenomenon, beautifully, in the last part of his poem, "The Passionate Pilgrim,"

Every one that flatters thee

Is no friend in misery.

Words are easy, like the wind,

Faithful friends are hard to find:

Every man will be thy friend,

Whilst hast wherewith to spend;

But if store of crowns be scant,

No man will supply they want.

He that is thy friend, in thy in deed:

He will help thee, in they need:

If thou sorrow, he will weep;

If thou wake, he cannot sleep;

Thus, of every grief in heart

He with thee doth bear a part.

These are certain signs to know

Faithful friend from flatt’ring foe.

"And Allah knows best."

References :
- Yuval Eylon & David Heyd, Flattery, International Phenomenological Society
- Laura Gibbs, Mille Fabulae et Una: 1001 Aesop’s Fables in Latin, Lulu Publishers

Bahasa